Why? Well, because this post is about the Kansas Regents' decision to pass a new social media policy, which states that:

the chief executive officer of a state university has the authority to suspend, dismiss or terminate any faculty or staff member who makes improper use of social media.

Improper use means making a communication that:

— Directly incites violence or other immediate breach of the peace;

— Is made pursuant to the employee’s official duties and is contrary to the best interests of the university;

— Discloses confidential student information, protected health care information, personnel records, personal financial information, or confidential research data; or

— Impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers, has a detrimental impact on close working relationships, impedes the performance of the speaker’s official duties, interferes with the regular operation of the university, or otherwise adversely affects the university’s ability to efficiently provide services.

Reading this, I'd feel compelled to say that it 1) seemed like an effort to stifle criticism of the University, 2) veered periliously close to making it impossible for colleagues to disagree publicly, especially over matters of instiutional practice, policy, or pedagogy, and 3) similarly put anyone considering discussing his or her experience with, say, discrimination or harassment on notice that doing so could be harmful to his or her carreer.  Even better, this transparent attempt to initmidate and constrain faculty speech in public fora was imposed by fiat without prior consultation with the faculty, though–in a clear effort to satisfy some of Protevi's likely objections–faculty were told that "the board would welcome input over the next several months."

Presumably, this input shouldn't be on social media, however, especially if it were critical or the process by which this policy were imposed, or its content.

Update: Scott Jaschik now has a story up at Inside Higher Ed that adds a few new details, including comments from the chair of the AAUP's Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure. 

Update 2: KU Law and Economics Professor Bill Black has written an analysis of the policy here, and been interviewed by the Kansas City Pitch here [h/t William Pannapacker]. Black pretty much confirms (and even extends) the worst case scenario interpretations of this policy that have been floating around. 

Posted in , , ,

16 responses to “If I worked at The University of Kansas, this post might get me fired”

  1. John Protevi Avatar

    “Oh, FFS” is the perfect category for this.

    Like

  2. Kevin Avatar
    Kevin

    Would 4 include voicing support (via twitter, facebook, or a blog) of a union for non unionized members of the university staff, eg, RAs, adjuncts, etc.? Or am I misreading it?

    Like

  3. Jamie Dreier Avatar

    My first thought was that the last item makes the policy patently unconstitutional. But the article says it follows the wording of a USSC case.
    On the other hand, this is somewhat comforting:
    KU Provost Jeff Vitter urged the regents to use caution, saying that the policy will be scrutinized nationally. “You are potentially walking into a dangerous situation,” he said.
    (At the end of the linked article.)

    Like

  4. Ed Kazarian Avatar

    I can imagine it being interpreted that way. Of course, as with stuff bearing upon discrimination and harassment, there should be at least legal recourse against discipline in a case like that (I am, of course, not a lawyer, etc., etc.), but the realities of defending oneself on those grounds against a well funded entity like a university would be another matter entirely, and they’d be even worse for anyone who was an ‘at will’ employee.

    Like

  5. Ed Kazarian Avatar

    My first thought was that this is the sort of thing that a lot of corporations have been imposing on their employees for ages (and it’s why my partner, who teaches folks who are likely going to work in corporate training departments, spends a lot of time teaching her students to use social media strategically). So I doubt it’s strictly unconstitutional, but see my comment above on what would likely happen where it does but up against forms of speech that might be protected legally — i.e., most of us would still get steamrolled (and they know it).
    Agree the provost being like ‘you realize how bad this is going to make us look’ is somewhat heartening, but the flip side is that this begins with them realizing they don’t have grounds to fire the prof who got angry with the NRA and deciding to give themselves (semi-plausible, though it’d be a real stretch) grounds to do that, and to fire every other kind of imaginable trouble maker too. It’s just such a clear case of providing an excuse to can anyone who makes you look bad, and the effect is to deny university employees one of our traditional ‘measures of last recourse’ against problems at our institutions, namely to go public with them. And that, I think, is an attempt to bring university faculty and staff into parity with the situation of most corporate employees now.

    Like

  6. Troy Boucher Avatar
    Troy Boucher

    Sounds like a violation of free speech. We have concealed carry in Kansas that is almost iron-clad but we can’t have free speech without endangering teaching jobs at public universities. Ridiculous. Wonder when they are going to trot out the loyalty oaths again?

    Like

  7. Jon Cogburn Avatar
    Jon Cogburn

    Well, it is clearly a violation of academic freedom. At the very least the AAUP needs to censure the system ASAP and to provide legal help to anyone who challenges the rules.
    It is also clearly a violation of free speech, but that doesn’t mean that the courts would recognize it as such because the rights of capital triumph the rights of everybody else in so many decisions with the conservative packed courts. This being said, I know there are old decisions involving how universities have a more “guild-like” structure, which makes it more difficult for employees to unionize (since faculty supposedly are management due to shared governance). So it’s not clear to me that universities have the same legal ability to get away with abrogating the free speech rights of faculty.

    Like

  8. Gary Shapiro Avatar
    Gary Shapiro

    I write as a former Kansas U faculty member (20 years). While a few of the items mentioned in the grab bag of social media prohibitions are reasonable (revealing students’ confidential info eg), the last item functions as a catch all for arbitrary penalties and dismissals. That the current provost has reservations is encouraging, but administrators may also be replaced. Although I don’t think it will happen (immediately) it’s not difficult to imagine some future administrator dismissing tenured faculty simply for protesting this policy about social media by posting their protest on social media.

    Like

  9. Dale Dorsey Avatar

    I’m a current member of KU’s philosophy department. I must say that this is a pretty scary policy. I would say more here, but honestly I’m unsure, given the text of the stated policy, that it would be wise for me to do so.
    Also, it’s “The University of Kansas”, not “Kansas University”.

    Like

  10. Ed Kazarian Avatar

    Fixed the title, Dale. Thanks for the correction. The KU thing confused me last night, and I should have looked it up to be sure.

    Like

  11. Dale Dorsey Avatar

    No prob. The newspaper you linked to, the Lawrence Journal-World, uses “Kansas University” in its stylesheet, which is annoying and causes confusion.

    Like

  12. Ed Kazarian Avatar

    So university doesn’t count as a corporation (for the purposes of unionization, in many places), except that it’s rapidly being corporatized (and faculty governance / guild-like structure has been a sham for decades). I wonder what would happen if those precedents were invoked and argued at this point in the development of things. From the point of view of academic freedom, it seems like we’d want them to survive, but as a description of the real structure of institutions, I don’t know how they would. As I said someplace else recently, the only places that I can think of where the ‘guild-like’ structure really seems to continue to exist are SLACs with strong faculty governance. Am I misreading this?

    Like

  13. Kris McDaniel Avatar
    Kris McDaniel

    What a horrible policy.

    Like

  14. HistoryMint Avatar

    Not good.
    Again, this is an attempt to shield the university administration from lawsuits.
    I see this trend across a number of universities where the administration tries to distance itself from both its faculty and staff, and simultaneously undermine the shared governance model.
    The irony is the way this behavior undercuts the actual nature of the university.

    Like

  15. John Protevi Avatar

    Homage to Scott Lemieux and Michael Bérubé: This is a corollary of the Sarah Palin Interpretation of the First Amendment (TM): “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Nor shall the right of university admins, no matter how harebrained their schemes, to be free from all criticism, ever be endangered because social media ZOMG.”

    Like

  16. Jon Cogburn Avatar
    Jon Cogburn

    Everything you say here makes sense to me.

    Like

Leave a comment